Squashed

Part of why I'm not a conservative evangelical

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:08:09 -0400

bellatoris, quoted from Obama’s The Audacity of Hope, adding emphasis:

“I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.

sds added, “Obama’s quick dismissal of Romans simply confirms what I’ve already observed about him—namely, that he has a low view of Scripture as informed by his mainline liberal denomination.”

Normally I’m impressed by sds’s thoughtful posts—though I often disagree with them. For one reason or another, this one bothered me. Sorry in advance, SDS and sympathizers, for any perceptible hostility in this post—but something that sentence struck a nerve. Perhaps it exemplifies why I’m not an evangelical—at least not a conservative evangelical.

In what manner does the passage in question indicate a “low view of Scripture”? It mentions two portions of scripture and suggests that one should be more defining of Christianity than the other. This is not a crazy suggestion. In fact, if you flip open a Bible, there’s a decent chance that the Sermon on the Mount, as something Jesus said, will be in brilliant red letters. There are a few parts of the Bible that have some tension with other parts of the Bible. If you don’t believe this, you haven’t read the Bible. This doesn’t mean that some parts should be discarded outright—but it does mean that there are some portions we might not base our public policy on (as sds already observed) without a whole lot of careful thought.

If you seriously claim to respect scripture about church history, you can’t condemn others as insincere when they put their informed reading of the scripture over your preferred reading. The Catholics, of course, give church history and authoritative interpretations a primacy that few Protestants do. That’s their thing—and if I wanted to do that, I’d up and become a Catholic. But if we’re going with sola scriptura, sola fide, you need to let people read the scripture. It is not dismissive of scripture to conclude that basing public policy on the inclusive sermon on the mount is more inline with what the church should be doing than basing policy on the one recorded sermon Jesus gave than on a passage primarily about idolotry that incidentally mentions homosexual sex along with gossip, slander, insolence, boastfulness, and the disobedience of parents.

Coincidentally, the passage wraps up in Romans 2:1 with, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” The passage goes on to talk about God’s kindness, tolerance and patience. But hey, if you want to read this passage and decide first that it’s one of the most important calls to action in the Bible and second, that the primary message of the passage is “NO HOMOS,” there’s nothing I can say to reach you.

Obama watches his kid's soccer game

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:11:58 -0400

Obama watches his kid's soccer game: Despite the common line that Obama and his family are too out there, they seem almost nauseatingly middle American—particularly when contrasted with the affluence of the McCains.

"Barack Obama is leading John McCain by five percentage points in Montana. The latest Rasmussen..."

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:48:39 -0400

“Barack Obama is leading John McCain by five percentage points in Montana. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows Obama attracting 48% of the vote while McCain earns 43%.”

- Rasmussen Reports™
In Montana. You know, the Montana with the ranchers that repeatedly elected the Senator who suggested environmentalists should chain themselves to grizzly bears if they love them so much.
To the vast right-wing conspiracy: Is this all part of the plan or are you going to write this election cycle off? I’d suggest sitting this one out, if only for the sake of your legacy.

"[T]wo officers were hurt last week when lightning struck between their motorcycles while on a..."

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:36:36 -0400

“[T]wo officers were hurt last week when lightning struck between their motorcycles while on a training exercise.”

- CNN
I don’t even like motorcycles—but I can still acknowledge that this is the most awesome possible way to be injured.

"Who identifies the porn on Youtube? According to Youtube, its regular users who police the site...."

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:10:05 -0400

“Who identifies the porn on Youtube? According to Youtube, its regular users who police the site. Personally, I dont believe it. Whether its individuals or technology that keep porn off of Youtube, it really doesn’t matter. If Viacom can use this data to show that Youtube manages the presentation of porn in any way, then they lose their DMCA protection.”

- Blog Maverick (via azspot).
This is not a good day to be YouTube. I think Viacom is about to kick the crap out of them.
(via marco)
I disagree with Marco and Blog Maverick. YouTube does a pretty reasonable job of keeping copyrighted content to a minimum. The site is famous for videos of cats, babies, and people lighting their pants on fire. Pretty much all the Presidential hopefuls used it in one way or another.
Napster got burned because it was almost exclusively about piracy. Sure, there were some other potential uses—but did anybody ever actually use them? This isn’t the case on YouTube.
Additionally, keeping pornographic content off the site is a whole lot easier than keeping copyrighted content off. You don’t always know copyrighted content when you see it. Additionally, judging whether a particular clip falls within fair use or a licensed use is virtually impossible.

Christopher Hitchens on Waterboarding

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:52:00 -0400

Christopher Hitchens on Waterboarding:

dailymeh:

Christopher Hitchens, in his essay for the August issue of Vanity Fair, describes how torture used to be “inflicted, and endured, by those members of the Special Forces who underwent the advanced form of training known as SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape)” — and how it is now used by Americans to torture others. This article presents a stunning example: military trainers who came to Guantánamo in 2002 presented an interrogation class on “coercive management techniques” based on a chart that, it turns out, was written for SERE in 1957, originally entitled “Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War”, based on interviews with American prisoners returned from North Korea. Whoa.
What used to be “Here’s how the evil Commies will elicit false confessions from American prisoners” became “Here’s how you Americans should interrogate ‘enemy combatants’” — the only thing changed in the chart was the title. (Hat tip Moonbase.)

I’m less interested in the origins than I am in why we would permit this sort of practice.

Could somebody suggest a Firefox plugin that converts MySpace pages (and only MySpace pages) into a...

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:53:54 -0400

Could somebody suggest a Firefox plugin that converts MySpace pages (and only MySpace pages) into a text-only form?

"Another charge card with American Express, this one for a “dependent child,” is carrying debt in the..."

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:30:03 -0400

“Another charge card with American Express, this one for a “dependent child,” is carrying debt in the range of $15,000 and $50,000.”

- TheHill.com - McCains report more than $100,000 in credit card debt
Apparently this is a monthly balance rather than a running debt. As in the “dependent child” is spending between $15,000 and $50,000 per month.
It’s pretty hard for me to figure out how to do this as a dependent child. I guess you could buy a car one month—but what do you blow your $50,000 on the next month? Keep in mind that you’re a dependent child—and this is all a credit card—so presumably you can’t use mortgage payments or even home repair to go through it.
Apparently the McCains are too affluent for my imagination.

"Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran told his hometown newspaper earlier this week that during a 1987 trip..."

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:27:29 -0400

“Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran told his hometown newspaper earlier this week that during a 1987 trip to Central America, he personally witnessed McCain grab an Ortega associate by his shirt collar to lift him out of a chair.”

- CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com
I think Thad Cochran may have been a bit off message with this one. McCain has denied this one, which is probably good. I’m still waiting for the denial or explanation of some of his more colorful comments to Cindy.

"[There is] a time of war, and a time of peace."

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:03:07 -0400

“[There is] a time of war, and a time of peace.”

- Ecclesiastes 3:8
Let’s talk about this verse. After I posted my snippet from the beatitudes complicatedshoes posted a snippet from Ecclesiastes, along with an admonition that nothing is as simple as I think. (This is probably true, though I may not be as simple as complicated shoes thinks.)
When studying the Bible, context is always important, but it is doubly important in Ecclesiastes, which includes verses like, “A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes life merry, but money is the answer for everything.“ The book is, in essense, an exploration of the futility of earthly material and earthly accomplishment.
The verse is perhaps most famous for the Byrds recording of Pete Seeger’s “Turn! Turn! Turn!”, but the catchy folkiness of the song doesn’t do justice to the anxiety of the original passage. One of the upcoming verses, which didn’t make the song, is “He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” In otherwords, we long for the eternal, but all we see is things in their appointed time. There is a time of war and a time of peace—but both end when their time is over.
I do not read this as an imperative to go to war or an endorsement of war. Rather, I see it as an acknowledgment of the existence of war without any statement on the justice, value, or even necessity of war. The passage lists opposite extremes and concludes that in the end, “The dust returns to the ground it came from, / and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:40:59 -0400

“Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.”

- Matthew 5:9
This one’s worth memorizing.

"4.5 to 1"

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:14:40 -0400

“4.5 to 1”

- Dollars raised by Obama from donors giving less than $200 relative to McCain. Obama’s money advantage is not from a small group of the uber-rich. In fact, if you strip out the big donors, the fundraising gap becomes more striking.

"I think it’s up to Senator Obama now to not only repudiate [Wesley Clark] but cut him loose."

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:46:07 -0400

“I think it’s up to Senator Obama now to not only repudiate [Wesley Clark] but cut him loose.”

- John McCain
This is absurd. In the past, I’ve felt the Dems were a bit too eager to call for the resignation of opponents’ advisors, but for McCain to demand the repudiation of General Clark? Sure, there are plenty of things not to like about Clark—but you’re going to have a pretty small tent if Wesley Clark is too edgy to associate with.

"[Obama] has indeed had great success with small donors, but only about 45 percent of his money comes..."

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:47:52 -0400

“[Obama] has indeed had great success with small donors, but only about 45 percent of his money comes from donations of $200 or less.”

- David Brooks - Obama’s Money Class - NYTimes.com
It’s strange that Brooks says “only.” Only 24% of McCain’s money came from donors of $200 or less. (Clinton had 30%). By contrast, 46% of his money came from people who gave the $2,300. Obama’s numbers are impressive not just because of the total amount raised but because of how little he has relied on the wealthy party base. Obama has raised more money in donations of under $200 than McCain has raised total.

"The best place to drill for oil is in the showrooms and boardrooms of automobile manufacturers."

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:32:05 -0400

“The best place to drill for oil is in the showrooms and boardrooms of automobile manufacturers.”

- Roger on BBC Scotland’s “World Have Your Say.” (I wish I could cite this one better, but … radio.)

On Patriotism

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:16:36 -0400

I talked with a few people about what patriotism meant in America. Because America a multi-national state. The cultural identifiers might bind all of us together, are much weaker in the U.S. than they are in other countries. Most of us share a language—but it’s the language of a country we split from. To the extent that we share a common history, it is measured in the hundreds rather than the thousands of years. Different regions have different cuisines—but for the most part they result from the fusion of various other national influences.

If anything binds us together, it is a set of common ideals. What these ideals are are interesting and worth discussing, but I can throw out the beginning of the Declaration of Independence as a start.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Now, we’ve had an evolving understanding of what that means. And sometimes we’ve done a better job than others of living up to that vision. In some ways the ideals are more goals that our country may never have represented.

Patriotism, then, requires loving these ideals and striving to make the reality of our country better match them.

Contrast this with what Jonah Goldberg wrote in a USA Today opinion column:

“We might need to change this or that policy or law, fix this or that problem, but at the end of the day the patriotic American believes that America is fundamentally good as it is.”

Mr. Goldberg suggests that it is ultimately love of the status quo that makes a patriot. Somehow, for Goldberg, the height of patriotism is some sort of I’m-Okay-You’re-Okay hugfest. To him patriotism is limited to this sort of masterbatory self-congratulation where what we can dream and what we can strive toward is limited by what we have already achieved.

This is not patriotism. I do not mean that we are not already great country nor do I immediately take a stance on how we’ve done fulfilling the promises of our country. It may be perfectly consistent with patriotism to look around the country and decide that you like it pretty much the way it is. However, for others patriotism not only allows but requires that we strive to fix the places where we have fallen short of the promises we believe in.

"I once won a geography bee. Are you sure it isn’t a Great Lake?"

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:15:40 -0400

“I once won a geography bee. Are you sure it isn’t a Great Lake?”

- Carolyn, on Lake Champlain, which, while beautiful, is not one of the five Great Lakes.

Which political party has a rift?

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:02:02 -0400

After a long, hard-fought primary, Clinton and Obama are campaigning together. Except for a few die-hards, it looks like Obama’s party has rallied behind him.

McCain can’t make the same claim. The Reagan coalition somehow combined the fiscal conservatives, the military conservatives, and the religious/social conservatives. McCain has a decent grip on the military conservatives. It’s no secret that McCain would probably resort to a military solution to a diplomatic problem before Obama would.

The religious and fiscal conservatives, however, are not really ralying behind McCain. If anything, they’re splintering. McCain’s spending proposals are lookng less responsible by the day. And many of the religious right see Obama as a man of faith and think McCain offers nothing more than lip-service. While the Democrats are swinging into the general election, McCain is still trying to win over his base.

"Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the..."

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:37:52 -0400

“Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”

- Barack Obama, a few months ago, on the D.C. Handgun law ruled unconstitutional today. Today Obama expressed support for the court’s decision. (For the record, I’m usually for handgun restrictions—but I also haven’t seen the details on this particular law.)
Apparently, some McCain supporters would prefer Obama to make snap judgments based on political expediency. I guess they’re not into the kind of politics that allows space for thoughtful and informed decision-making.

On Religion, Public Policy, and Obama

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:32:31 -0400

sds had an interesting contribution to an ongoing discussion (originally) about the role of faith in a democracy.

Generally, mainline denominations are more liberal in theology than conservative evangelical Christianity. While many mainline churches pay lip service to the orthodox creeds, in practice they tend to flout traditional/historical interpretation.

As one of those infamous main-liners, I have to take exception to this. I would say that my denomination (PC-USA) pays very careful attention to all of church history and tradition. We recognize that it is both rich and diverse. My objection to certain voices in the evangelical community is that they often talk about church history without knowing any church history before, say, C.S. Lewis.

There is a lot of dissent within church history. The Catholics pay very careful attention to church history as well. So do the Eastern Orthodox. The insight that the main-liners have is that what divides us is less important than what brings us together. The main-line offers a large table, and is willing to give everybody a voice. This does not mean that the beliefs of any are the beliefs of all, but it does mean that good-faith dissent is anticipated. This allows a bit more self-reflection and internal critique than some denominations have.